Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
If I forgot any, please let me know
If I forgot any, please let me know in the comments
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Awesome but flawed
I think the problem with this movie is that what was good about it was so good it almost overshadows its flaws, in which there were quite a few. #1: Tom Hardy should not have played Bane. I think Nolan only gave him that part because he likes him personally. Nolan didn't seem to realize that part of what made The Dark Knight great was a once-in-a-lifetime performance from Heath Ledger, one which it is difficult to live up to, especially for mediocre actors like Hardy. I would bet money that Anne Hathaway and Juno Temple were the only actors in this movie who actually auditioned for their parts. #2: The dialog, at times, lacked basic grammar fundamentals. For instance, "I count fine." Not "My counting is fine," or "I count quite well." "I count fine." But at other times, it was in fact very good. #3: The seemingly deaf football player who was completely unaware that the ground was falling from beneath him. #4: Constant views of the Manhattan skyline. They did a good job photoshopping out the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings and central park, but you can easily identify the construction site for the new World Trade Center, and the island itself is just too recognizable. #5: This is a problem I have with the whole trilogy: Jonathan Crane should have either died or been arrested in Batman Begins. #6: (major spoiler) My biggest problem with this movie: It's impossible to survive a nuclear blast.
Other than these six things, The Dark Knight Rises was perfect. It featured beautiful directing from the legendary director Christopher Nolan, and timely performances from Bale, Caine, Freeman, Oldman, and Neeson. It's not at all cheesy like the older Batman movies. It intensely explores human emotions, courage, sacrifice, belief, and doing what's right. A flawed, yet awe-inspiring film I highly recommend.
I changed how I feel about the first two installments about five times each, so this review may not reflect how I feel about this film down the road.
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Fantastic. Touching. Moving
Well, the trailers and poster are very misleading. Though before seeing this movie, I read the content advisory, and even though it said that this movie is extremely violent, I was kind of expecting a positive energy from the characters throughout the film. Boy, was I wrong. Still, though, I like really depressing and serious movies.
Major spoiler: I love movies where one character dies for another. I find it absolutely moving. I loved how in this movie, Hanks didn't die to save Damon, but died to teach him to be a better man.
Critically, this movie was amazing. The acting was fantastic. The writing was very well-done. The characters, while they could have been developed a little bit better, were still developed just fine in my opinion. The directing was great. Overall, this movie is very moving and I recommend it to everyone who can sit through blood and guts.
The Hurt Locker (2008)
Though this movie incorporates a wonderful message (war is a drug)and has very good character development, "The Hurt Locker" has probably the poorest writing I have ever experienced from any form of media, be it books, television, or movies. This script fails to incorporate the basic fundamentals of the English language. This script also contains many phrases intended for laughs, but all of them intensely fail to be funny. Honestly, was this your first-grade writing project?
My biggest concern with this movie is that it has no identifiable conflict. Sure, their new leader was kind of a pain to deal with, but in the movie (spoiler): he has no change of heart and continues to do the things he would normally do, and the others just out of the blue begin to deal with it. Not that they tried to fix this about him at all. This movie was basically just a bomb squad walking around Iraq putting out IEDs, which is fine if you want if you want to make a documentary, but that's obviously not what Bigelow and Boal intended, and for that, they failed in making this movie.
I liked it, but I know why everyone else didn't
Even though I am giving this movie an 8/10, I know why its weighted average rating is only 5.9/10.
At about the hour and a half mark, for the most part, the plot just stops and the movie is nothing but robots blowing each other up.
I can understand why people don't like that, but it essentially becomes a matter of opinion. I personally don't have any problem with it. So long as a plot is there at all, I'm good. But that's just me.
Now, if you're one who likes a good, thorough, consistent plot throughout the movie, this most certainly is not a movie for you. However, if you like to watch movies just for the effects, this is definitely the movie for you.
Other reasons why I like this movie: I like to watch movies just for the effects. It's not illegal. Also, the art direction really reminds me of where I grew up.
The perfect movie?
I had very high expectations for this movie. I am a huge fan of sci-fi movies, and grew up watching Shia LaBeouf on TV. Obviously, I didn't want to be let down.
Thankfully, I wasn't. This movie completely met all of my expectations and then some. The visual effects were amazing. Shia LaBeouf gave an exceptionally good performance. It was perfectly paced. I liked how there was actually a plot (unlike some people who didn't bother to pay attention to the dialog think) about two political parties who couldn't settle an argument over something, turned to war, brought an apocalypse to their world, and brought the war to ours. Very dramatic, perfectly paced, and the plot was appealing and interesting to me.
People have been really picking on the character development in this movie. Personally, they just didn't feel it. Sam is a nerd with very few friends and desperately wants to be popular. Mikaela is very popular and is constantly abused and doesn't want to be and is looking for someone to give her salvation.
A lot can be said about how bad the other two were: they both had lots of flaws. This movie, however, is absolutely flawless. I wouldn't change a single thing about it.
Too chick-flicky and a stupid plot
People say that this movie is unoriginal. I disagree. I have never seen a movie where a man betrays mankind to help a bunch of Smurfs preventing mankind from surviving. One of the stupidest idea I've ever heard.
This movie was a little bit better than I was expecting, but overall just wasn't that good at all. The graphics, while people may say were very good, weren't quite the best I've ever seen. The plot wasn't that interesting, nor was it very realistic. In my mind, this movie is kind of an action aspiring to be a chick-flick, the worst kind of movie there is. I also find it kind of stupid how the movie was written around a man betraying other men to help a civilization keeping man from surviving. I think that the beginning could have been a little bit longer: I would have liked to have seen Earth in the movie. I think that the end could have been shortened down to one battle instead of two. Overall, this movie really could have been done much better.